Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Her eyes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    If you think in that picture you can make out any features when Bond himself said he couldnt, go ahead and believe what you want. I never said Barnett wouldnt have seen her hair, it IS obvious in the pictures. Why I would say he couldnt use the hair for ID I cant say, and Im puzzled as to why someone would suggest someone who didnt say something, did. When he made his id the flap of skin covering her eyes....in that photo would have been laid aside. Your lines like "You can see the eye clearly on the upper left side of her face"....provably incorrect......"A person defending themselves would leave very strong gashes on the fingers and palm itself"...completely dependant on the position of the person being attacked....."And in such a scenario she wouldn't be able to defend herself in any way"....another presumption you have no evidence for, ....are revealing about you, not this crime.

    Heres something you might try to figure out..... how she got her throat cut while lying on her right side facing the partition wall.....the arterial splashes are revealing in that regard, ..then look at the injuries to her left arm, an appendage which would react to the first cut and be between the killer and Mary. The face was slashed, the arm was cut....post mortem? No, review the evidence again. What we have is someone who was on the space Mary left on the left hand side of the bed reaching across with a knife in his left hand to access the throat.

    If you interpreted evidence well you can learn a lot....like he was left handed, and she was most probably back to sleep. Why did no-one hear anything after "oh-murder'? Because nothing happened at that time. Soon thereafter, when Elizabeth and Diddles settled back to sleep, thats when he kills. So what can that evidence teach us? That he was in the room with her knowledge, that she likely left him space on the bed to spoon in with her, and that she reacted to the cut while the killer and his weight could be applied to keep her movements subdued. The throat cut was first...calling out was no option at that point, but she was still alive for a few moments.

    You think you see something that cant be seen, you dismiss the fact that she is alive after the throat cut and would be reacting, you suggest this murder was like a client Ripper murder...despite the fact she obviously knew her killer and we have no evidence that she had ever brought a "client" into that room, you insist that death comes in seconds after a throat cut even though you can see thats not the case in other so called Canonical murders,....and dispelling that all makes me argumentative?

    Evidence is one thing, drawing conclusions based solely on cuts is not how you find out what happened, The physical evidence is the most revealing sure, maybe some crime reconstruction might help you understand why Bond thought he face was almost unrecognizable and why it seems to almost anyone...perhaps excluding you...that wounds on her arms seem like defensive ones. Might even reveal to you that it would appear the man that killed Mary used the knife in his left hand, trying finding that evidence with any other Canonical.
    Stating subjective, agenda-fuelled opinion as fact again, Michael?

    Or do you actually know that a prostitute in 1888 would never, ever have shared her bed with a man she didn't know, even after her previous meal ticket had moved out?

    What do you suppose was Kelly's relationship with Blotchy? Had Mrs Cox, Joe Barnett or anyone else ever seen this man before in Kelly's company?





    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      Too much to address but I would suggest that prejudicial perspectives can be paralyzing when trying to understand what the evidence is saying. For one example, the evidence is suggesting that Mary killer allowed her killer to be in that room in the first place. Just like she allowed Blotchy...who we never see leave. That means she knew him. To argue that point with me tells me that you would rather believe if the man was in the room he was there as a client. Even though thats not indicated or warranted by her history. As for left handed, try and reconstruct someone right handed getting a knife to her throat as she lay on her right side facing away from the assailant. If youve done so youd realize he almost certainly was left hand dominant, or possibly ambidextrous. Which is a very very small percentage of any given population.

      I realize that people like to disagree with some conclusions I make, but I am doing so without evidence review preconceptions. Feel free to review the data that way too.

      On your points:
      1. Agreed on the first cut decision.
      2. Lost would be I think more appropriate, incomplete seemingly meaningless acts suggest that.
      3. Some wounds were, the initial attack less "careful".
      4. There is no discernible pattern, you cannot determine in what order certain things were done like the wounds made on Annie for example. Check the Tabram data again...he hit several major organs multiple times.
      5. She may appear to have been, but when and by whom?
      Kelly was a working prostitute when she met Joe Barnett. They shacked up together almost immediately, and he wanted to earn enough so she no longer had to survive that way. What do you think she did to earn her next bite to eat, when Joe lost his job and later moved out of that room? What do you think Blotchy was there for - her singing? Her cordon bleu cookery? Her collection of penny blacks?

      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        There are so many differences in the Miller Court murder from any other murder of that period that to conclude a man who was suggested to be of surgical grade knowledge....being Annies killer...also is responsible for the mayhem in room 13 is a huge leap. There are so many odd acts that served no purpose in room 13, and in Annies case he cut where he needed to and did what was needed to obtain what he wanted. In Marys case, was it neccesary to strip her thighs, but only one completely? Was that straight line cut across the calf needed to obtain anything? Her slashed face?

        I think both you and Mortis should take a closer comparative look at victims, in venue, circumstance and activities, how different Marys murder was. Then look at the skills exhibitted....no suggestion by any contemporary medical man that Marys killer was skilled or anatomically savvy. Again, that differs greatly from Annie.
        You really think that everything that was done to Annie Chapman was necessary??

        You seem to have a very odd way of looking at these murders, Michael. But then your chosen suspect gave you little choice in the matter.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          Stating subjective, agenda-fuelled opinion as fact again, Michael?

          Or do you actually know that a prostitute in 1888 would never, ever have shared her bed with a man she didn't know, even after her previous meal ticket had moved out?

          What do you suppose was Kelly's relationship with Blotchy? Had Mrs Cox, Joe Barnett or anyone else ever seen this man before in Kelly's company?




          Since you asked I think he probably was a safe man to get a walk home with, security if you will. And she rewards him with her company and song.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post

            Kelly was a working prostitute when she met Joe Barnett. They shacked up together almost immediately, and he wanted to earn enough so she no longer had to survive that way. What do you think she did to earn her next bite to eat, when Joe lost his job and later moved out of that room? What do you think Blotchy was there for - her singing? Her cordon bleu cookery? Her collection of penny blacks?
            Kelly was said to be fearful of the streets during the Ripper run, and she was 2 1/2 weeks in arrears, and she did have Barnett giving her money even after leaving, and Maria after spending the afternoon in her room with her. Doesnt seem like she was working that last night either, and still got drunk. Some women were lucky enough to still appear marketable after a few years soliciting, she likely had her drinks bought for her, and by Blotchy would be my guess.

            I believe Blotchy or someone Blotchy knew was her killer, and getting her almost pass out drunk was part of a plan. Like having someone watch the courtyard for some time that night.
            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-26-2021, 02:12 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post

              You really think that everything that was done to Annie Chapman was necessary??

              You seem to have a very odd way of looking at these murders, Michael. But then your chosen suspect gave you little choice in the matter.
              Are you asking my opinion or questioning the comments made by someone trained medically who actually examined her? Its easy to make every comment my own personal opinion so that you can trash talk it, but Phillips saw 4 of the five and was quite capable of making cutting deductions.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                When you look at evidence based on an outcome or suspect youre going to see what fits with that and tailor your profile accordingly. Youll see what you planned on seeing. In Strides case there is doubt circumstantially, with physical evidence and outcome that all adds up to a man who wanted to kill a woman. Nobody thinking of ripping up anyone.
                You heard it from one who knows, folks.

                Unbelievable.
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                  Since you asked I think he probably was a safe man to get a walk home with, security if you will. And she rewards him with her company and song.
                  Ah, how sweet. And if Kelly hadn't been 'indisposed' come Sunday, I've no doubt he would have accompanied her to church.
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Kelly was said to be fearful of the streets during the Ripper run, and she was 2 1/2 weeks in arrears, and she did have Barnett giving her money even after leaving, and Maria after spending the afternoon in her room with her. Doesnt seem like she was working that last night either, and still got drunk. Some women were lucky enough to still appear marketable after a few years soliciting, she likely had her drinks bought for her, and by Blotchy would be my guess.

                    I believe Blotchy or someone Blotchy knew was her killer, and getting her almost pass out drunk was part of a plan. Like having someone watch the courtyard for some time that night.
                    If she was fearful of the streets, it was because that was where the ripper had been doing his thing, which might explain why she felt safer entertaining indoors. After all, most women like to think they can trust their instincts with men, but they can get it badly wrong, whether they've only just met or known each other for some considerable time. Kelly only had to be wrong once, and she picked on the wrong man to keep her company at some point that night. If he was a familiar face, she didn't know him as well as she thought she did, but I suspect he was just as likely to have been a stranger, who was only as outwardly charming and generous as he needed to be to win her confidence.
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                      Are you asking my opinion or questioning the comments made by someone trained medically who actually examined her? Its easy to make every comment my own personal opinion so that you can trash talk it, but Phillips saw 4 of the five and was quite capable of making cutting deductions.
                      So what was Phillips's verdict? That one man murdered Nichols and Chapman; a second did for Stride; a third butchered Eddowes; and a fourth took Kelly apart, in a way that told him this time it was personal?

                      If not, I will continue to question your apparently unique take on these murders.
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        Hutchinson was not in the position of having to prove his story, he was a witness. He said he had known her for 3? years, well, three year prior Kelly was living at 79 Pennington street, and Stephen Maywood also lived there (or next door), who was a horse dealer with stables at Romford.
                        Did Hutchinson, a horse-groomer, and connections to Romford, know Stephen Maywood three years ago?
                        Let's try this one out...

                        Did Hutchinson also know Lechmere -- and well enough to want to protect him? Lechmere and Maywood had children attending the same school for a time. Maywood was Kelly's pimp around then. Lechmere may actually have known Kelly, therefore. Lechmere had a daughter named Mary Jane (b.1875). Mary Jane Kelly probably wasn't really called Mary Jane, but took the names from somewhere. Kelly was scared by the Ripper murders (and ?therefore? behind with her rent), but would likely have trusted Lechmere if she'd known him from before and taken his eldest daughter's name. Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan Man is absolutely ludicrous -- but would have served very well as a way of putting the police off Lechmere's scent had he been one of the people seen. Hypothesis: Lechmere had connections and pulled in a favour...

                        M.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          You heard it from one who knows, folks.

                          Unbelievable.
                          Are you the pot to my kettle? You seem to think all the women were actively prostituting themselves including Mary.....just that nasty speed bump about any evidence for that whatsoever thats holding you back? You made so many decisions without using the known evidence but you shouldnt accuse others of the same without some evidence.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            Ah, how sweet. And if Kelly hadn't been 'indisposed' come Sunday, I've no doubt he would have accompanied her to church.
                            Well Caz, what has your vivid imagination made of singing behind closed doors for over an hour....did she sing while servicing? Or was that her weekend special....sex and song while inebriated?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post

                              So what was Phillips's verdict? That one man murdered Nichols and Chapman; a second did for Stride; a third butchered Eddowes; and a fourth took Kelly apart, in a way that told him this time it was personal?

                              If not, I will continue to question your apparently unique take on these murders.
                              "No meaningless cuts". Have you been actually reading any posts or just ranting at other people coming up with answers that you apparently couldnt?

                              Thats NO, meaning none.....meaningless, that means superfluous.....cuts, that means the marks he made with his knife.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                If she was fearful of the streets, it was because that was where the ripper had been doing his thing, which might explain why she felt safer entertaining indoors. After all, most women like to think they can trust their instincts with men, but they can get it badly wrong, whether they've only just met or known each other for some considerable time. Kelly only had to be wrong once, and she picked on the wrong man to keep her company at some point that night. If he was a familiar face, she didn't know him as well as she thought she did, but I suspect he was just as likely to have been a stranger, who was only as outwardly charming and generous as he needed to be to win her confidence.
                                How many days did Mary have alone in that room? She moved in with Barnett, and he moved out the end of Oct. Maria was there until Tuesday that last week...Mary was seen out on Wednesday, and went out drinking Thursday...and not one witness said that they ever saw Mary take any man other than Barnett into that room. Your contention, and a brilliant one, is that Mary began bringing men into her room that very night. How fortuitous for your reasoning.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X